I worked in Japan for more than 12 years in the eighties and nineties, in Osaka, Nagoya and Tokyo with the U. S. State Department, Citibank and Merrill Lynch. After many more years in China in banking (Deutsche Bank and Ping An Bank) and consulting, I am back in Tokyo conducting the business of Yangtze Century Ltd. (Hong Kong/Shanghai) and producing this blog. E-mail me at smharnerco@yahoo.com.

Is the U.S. Committed to Defend the Senkakus? Text of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty

If–as is implied by the NHK report–Japan thinks that Article 5 can be immediately invoked in dealing with the Senkaku crisis, and that it is thereby standing “shoulder-to-shoulder” with the U.S. against China, I think it is engaging in wishful thinking. During Panetta’s hastily arranged stopover in Tokyo on his way to Beijing, his unsubtle command to Japan was not to further escalate the crisis.

China’s silence on Article 5 is a kind of “non-recognition,” a diplomatic approach that would make it easier for the other side (i.e., the U.S.) to back down and effectively abandon implied commitments. Meanwhile, China is showing no signs that it wishes to de-escalate the confrontation, nor should we expect any lessening of pressure in the near term.

There are many risks in the Senkaku/Diaoyudao crisis. Particularly great are risks owing to miscalculation of the other side’s intentions. For Japan this means not only the intensions of China, but also the intensions of its ally, the United States.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

“If–as is implied by the NHK report–Japan thinks that Article 5 can be immediately invoked in dealing with the Senkaku crisis, and that it is thereby standing “shoulder-to-shoulder” with the U.S. against China, I think it is engaging in wishful thinking.”

Japanese “leaders” have a two-decade-long list of policies based on “wishful thinking.” What makes this particular issue different? Noda is about to reshuffle his Cabinet again, following a tradition of prime ministers who seem to think leadership is a calculation rather than a personal attribute. Sadly, as corrupt and unaccountable as the bureaucracy is, Japan might be better off if it just did away with the pretense of political leadership and resign itself to being administered by this group.

The US -Japan Defense Treaty has been in place since 1960. The failure of the United States to “take sides” on the sovereignty issue may avoid direct confrontation with China in the short term, but as with most short term solutions, it may result in a larger conflict at a later time. In reality there is little argument that China’s claim to the Senkakus is part of China’s current military and territorial expansion in the East and South China Seas. It is also aimed at potential oil and gas in the region as China only made a claim in 1970, after the discovery of such resources in the 1960s. China’s arguments that it has owned these islands for centuries is questionable as the Washnmgton Times publized a PRC map from the 1960s showing the islands as Japanese territory and clearly on the Japanese side of the border line. Perhaps more intriguing is the fact that the United States has used the islands as a live fire/bombing training ground from 1945 to 1978. Are we to assume that we have been bombing Chinese territory for decades and Chinas never complained? The real question is not whether the U.S. would engage in a conflict with China over some uninhabited rocks. The question is whether the U.S. is prepared to lost it’s credibility on a global scale, not just Japan but all of the ASEAN nations that are relying on the U.S. for support in the face of Chinese territorial aggression, in Europe, in the Middle East. The United States needs to unequivocably make it clear to China that we m,ost certainly are taking sdes on the sovereinty issue and will stand by our defense treaties. To do otherwise is merely inviting further aggressive actions from China who has already openly declared their intent to replace the United States as the dominant strategic power in the region.

As I commented in other articles, Japan played the wrong card. Although there is a security treaty for the U.S to protect Japan, there is no way the U.S will get involve. China have around 400 warheads and anti-air craft carrier systems that fire from the earth’s atmosphere-vertically straight down to the center of the carrier. The U.S is tied up in Middle East-Iran (1 year to Nuclear bomb success mfg). 80% of Costco products are from China. Apple Iphone is from China. If U.S get involve, China just take over U.S company assets, IP, etc….Russia, South Korea, North Korea will unite to fight Japan because U.S get involve. So, I think Japan played the wrong card for stupid young political candidates in Japan.

Japan has not played the wrong card. If anything, it has been playing the wrong card for far too many decades. And it’s hardly just Japan. The U.S. is guilty of supporting China’s economic growth while not paying attention to it’s military growth while busy watcjhing the middleast and conducting the “war on terror”. There are many pro-China supporters who declare that “U.S. will not get involved”. This is exactly what China would like the U.S. to do with regard to not oinly Japan but the Phillipines, Malaysia, Vietnam, every country that China’s is “bullying” to take their territory. The U.S. is in the midst of shifting 60% of it’s naval forces to the Pacirfic to counter China’s expansion and aggression. To claim that hte U.S, “won’t do anything” in this context is rather absurd. Discussions of China’s nuclear capability are really irrelevant as China has no intent of starting WWIII to fulfill it’s expansion plans.

I don’t see the confusion. The US does not take a position on the ultimate ownership of the islands. We do have a treaty obligation to defend Japan if areas under Japanese administration comes under attack. The islands are currently under Japanese administration, hence we are obligated to defend Japan against Chinese aggression. If China can through non-violent means coerce Japan into surrendering the islands, America is not obligated to defend Japan.

Additionally, according to American news reports (as opposed to Chinese state media) we did inform China that we see these islands as protected under Article 5, and our Ambassador to Japan has communicated the same thing to Japan.

We of course are pushing Japan not to escalate the situation, which near as I can tell Japan has not. Rather China continues to escalate.

Either China thinks he can win despite US opposition, or it believes the US will not honor her treaty commitments, or the Chinese leadership has decided that losing the war is less dangerous then not fighting, or (most likely) this is all an attempt to divert Chinese popular opinion away from the domestic failures of current Chinese leadership- in which case China probably does not plan a war at all.

Thank you for your comment. Yes, the commitment of Article 5–such as it is–and the position on disputed territories are not necessarily in contradiction, and can be logically presented and justified in the way you succinctly do. The complications come in actually acting, or not acting, or–more to the point, short of an attack–presenting a credible posture one way or the other. Japan in my view has taken too much comfort–i.e., has succumbed to wishful thinking and a indulged a faith in a U.S. willingness to risk war that is unrealistic–in Article 5. This is understandable, because as we know Japan resists change, and two entire generations of Japanese military and foreign affairs bureaucrats have been steeped in this doctrine. But it no longer reflects reality, or a realistic way forward for Japan. The U.S. and China have basically become strategic partners, as Panetta said. In this contact, Article 5 is a dead letter.

Stephen – this is an interesting post and I enjoy reading your analysis of Japan’s security sitution in North East Asia. I think you make a pretty sanguine point here – Japan should not feel that it has “umbrella protection” provided by Washington on the Senkaku Islands dispute. I think the nuance of the Treaty is important here. But it is not just nuance on the Japanese side. China knows very well its limitations in pushing the US towards a military response. Beijing knows that there is a limit to what it can do to achieve its geostrategic goals in the region. The US will indeed – in my opinion – back Japan if there is a serious military attack on the Senkaku Islands by China. They have no other choice – legally or politically (perhaps the latter holding more sway). But China will be ever so careful as to not let this happen. Skirmishes are one thing – but China will be careful to draw a line in the sand so as not to force the issue. I think Japan recognizes this too and thus, while relying on Article 5, enjoys more the deterrent threat than the implementation.

Many thanks for the comment. I agree with you as far as you go, but the issue goes further and leads to a very different conclusion. Yes, the U.S. would, now under Article 5, be obligated to and would indeed very likely have to intervene in hostilities with China over the Senkakus. China, knowing this, will keep the conflict at a level below hostilities. If they break out by miscalculation and accident, it will in current planning quickly seek to de-escalate (as would Japan). But de-escalation is very, very hard to engineer without giving the appearance of weak commitment, which neither side ever wants to give. De-escalation is very difficult. So if de-escalation fails and the U.S. finds itself compelled to increase its level of aid to Japan, things get very dangerous. The issue here is how does this scenario and its huge risks and ramifications as almost any level serve even the short term, much less the long term, interests of a U.S. that wants and needs to forge a new strategic relationship (“partnership” is really the right word) with China. What are–or should be–the strategic value of the Senkakus to the U.S. Are they a “core vital interest” for which the U.S. is prepared to go to war with China? Realistically–I want to say rationally–we cannot/must not answer this question in the affirmative. I hope the issue is never forced. But if it is, the U.S. cannot, should not, and will not fight for the Senkakus. Most of the post-war establishment in Japan fervently wants to deny and disbelieve what I write. But it is undeniable. The current imbroglio and confusion is rooted in the fact that the existing strategic defense order of alliances and treaties in Asia do not reflect the new U.S.-China relationship. In the context of this relationship, Japan has become the odd man out, though, again, there is still mostly denial of this, both in Japan and the U.S. For more the best discussion and proposal I have seen (a must read) is the new book by Australian National University professor of strategic studies Hugh White, The China Choice: Why American Should Share Power.

Thanks Stephen. I agree with you that Hugh White is a great source of knowledge on this area, and I have read excerpts from his book.

I think you identify an important question here – what is a vital “core” interest to the US? In other words, what would they go to war over? I tend to agree with you that the Senkakus are not a core interest to the US – but it all depends on the nature of how China deals with it and how Japan responds. If China were to do something bold – such as sending the PLAN into the East China Sea and looking to occupy the Senkakus, the US has strategic pressure. It is not Munich or Vietnam, but the Senkaku issue also needs to be viewed under the lens of the US-China strategic relationship (which you correctly alluded to), and not just the US-JPN relationship.

I we are almost in full agreement – although I do differ with you on the nature of the US-China relationship. I do not see Japan as the odd man out at all; it is not 1950, 1972 anymore, that is a given. China’s emergence has “changed the game” in Asia, but Japan’s importance in the strategic topography of the region should not be overlooked. US engagement in the Asia-Pacific is centered around this pillar (with Australia being the other). There is little incentive to isolate Japan and actually there are significant disincentives to do so. I am not fully sold on the US-China relationship evolving in the way that Hugh White describes.

Hi, I am from South Japan resident. And from one of the oldest clans in Japan who lived with all histories on trades with China, Okinawa, and et al. So yes, we do know a lot about historical backgrounds on Senkakus and Okinawa, more than some professors specialized in Asia studies whose study materials were solely Chinese materials and assisted by Chinese officials.

Anyhow, my question.

I am wondering, why are you saying Japan-US agreement “if your country is attacked, we will help you” is invalid officially?

I am sure – after seeing your background – that you can ask people close to White House to confirm about this. Or you are so sure that Japan’s relationship with the US is dead as this is what is said in China?

You don’t have to answer my Q if you’d like not want to. I can see that already by reading your stories over the past weeks.

Motojiro, I can understand that you do not like reading or hearing that Japan should doubt the willingness of the U.S. to confront China militarily to defend the Senkakus. I refer you to two very important books that raise these doubts. The first (in Japanese) is チャイメリカー米中結託と日本の進路 (Chimerica–U.S.-China Interdependence and the Way Forward for Japan),by Professor Yabuki Susumu 矢吹晋. The other (in English) is The China Choice: Why America Should Share Power, Hugh White by professor of strategic studies at Australian National University. Both books make the point that serious military conflict between the U.S. and China is unthinkable, both because of the potentially catastrophic costs–in lives and treasure–and because of the fundamental illogic and lack of justification in terms of vital U.S. interests. Please do not think the Senkakus count as vital U.S. interests. They do not and should not. Professor Yabuki’s book makes the profoundly important point that I repeat in today’s post: in today’s and tomorrow’s context of U.S.-China interdependent relations, the U.S.-Japan security alliance has lost all credibility as a deterrent, and in reality is more a threat to than a safeguard of Japan’s security. Japan should abrogate the treaty and pursue its interests through active diplomacy. (In fact, this is what is happening and must remain the way forward in the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute, where the U.S. expending most of its influence to restrain Japan’s response to Chinese actions, for fear of being pulled in.) Professor White sees the expansion of Chinese power and appreciation of its own interests, particularly in Asia, as natural, inevitable, and acceptable. I agree. He observes, however, that the post-WWII East Asia order has been one of U.S. military primary or hegemony. Japan has been a U.S. client serving as an appendage of regional U.S. power primacy. China is no longer accepting that U.S. regional power primacy and they should not be expected to. White proffers a “concert of powers” model for a new regional order, where four regional powers–China, Japan, the U.S., and India would agree not to individually or in concert seek to dominate each other, but would share order-keeping authority in areas outside the perimeters of their vital interests. White’s book is an exciting intellectual read. And it is not just ivory power speculation. It is a sober and realistic analysis of the changing power relations and interests of Japan, China, and the U.S. and presents the best framework I have seen for a comprehensive way forward. Not surprisingly, perhaps, Professors White and Yabuki reach roughly the same conclusion about Japan: the security relationship with the U.S. under the alliance cannot and will not stand an (inevitable) adjustment to new Asian realities. Japan must regain and exercise its independence and sovereignty in Asia.

I see those books seem to be interesting. One from Japan that seems agitating people to have more Japan Self Defense Military force (and to do that changing laws that is already on the way), and one from why, Australia where got one of the biggest Chinese investments for recent years – and now fearful about the power in own industries.

Hmmm.

So much to mull, including who think what why.

No one here in Japan, especially South where always witnessed threats coming from South Korea and China + alpha, Japan’s Senkaku nationalization decision was made with a belief – US protection.

We believe so because Chinese Military will invade neighboring countries regardless historical truth-faulse reasoning.

They did on South China Sea already, with Senkakus, only the next is to invade Okinawa where US camp is. All to (1) justify funding Chinese defense budgets (2) oil, gas, rare earth deposits found in Japan/ US sea territories.

So we believe that there is exactly no “right time” to show our attitudes on our territory to China.

Beside, it has been the US who asked Japan to (1) show leadership to defend our territory before anything (2) do everything before US force will get involved through Gaikou “foreign relation negotiation/ contacts” (3) manage Japanese citizen’s conflicting views about introducing more defense to camps – especially South Japan.

We are just doing these. Still going concern stage. And believe it is just way too early to claim “Japan-US agreement on protection” is dead.

When dead, how dead, why dead? – it is quite mesmerizing to give up our hope through “Gaikou” – adjusting accordingly to the situation in the future.

We know Japan’s industries in China produces 1/3 corporate tax revenues. We know what their withdrawals for the next 2-3 years mean to incomes, employment, foreign (non-Japanese) investments, industries in China. We know what it would mean economically to Japan.

We are going to weigh and look at how things will go. If these decisions will turn out to be “lucky” or “bad” in our future.

Then there will be other books, talking about the agreement’s validity. Maybe you will write about it again then.

Meantime, what you wrote sounded pretty too far from what it is happening.

Just like “Tokyo-sama” writes something about places so remote from them.

To readers living outside Japan, never been here, it sounds so believable – enough to think “there will be a big war between Japan and China.”

I would like to point out that simply because the economies of the U.S. and China are intertwined (as well as in so many other ways) that doesn’t mean that was is unthinkable. France and Germany had highly intertwined economic relations in the inter-war period as did other European states and we know what happened there.

Stephen, you wrote: “I hope the issue is never forced. But if it is, the U.S. cannot, should not, and will not fight for the Senkakus”

I think the US really has one option, “it will not” go to war with China to protect Japan for the islands. A more accurate statement would be why should the US go to war with China when China wants those islands only. It is not like Communist China is invading Democratic Japan.

And, I’m no US constitution expert, but why would such a “dumb” law be written in the constution to protect another foreign country? Not to mention, we all know that what is under “contract” can always be challenged and refuted.

Article Act 5 was wistfully created without any countries(World) knew that,so it’s not trues at all. US is busybody go around the world and promote to warn other nation about war . More business for US to sell weapon to kill more innocence people. Don’t forgot US was attack at Hawaii Pearl Harbor and huge damaged by Japanese,then US also drop two atomic bomb at Nagasaki and Hiroshima,Japan. They are enemy ,how can they sign pact together ,Both are liar. Even that have ,this act is against China claim in South China Sea belong in ancient time. China also prepare aggravate trouble to this area ,for sure will counter back them off completely.

Article Act 5 was wistfully created without any countries(World) knew that,so it’s not trues at all. US is busybody go around the world and promote to warn other nation about war . More business for US to sell weapon to kill more innocence people. Don’t forgot US was attack by Japanese at Hawaii Pearl Harbor and huge damaged,dead and destroyed by Japanese planes,then US also drop two atomic bomb at Nagasaki and Hiroshima,Japan. They are enemy ,how can they sign pact together ,Both are liar. Even that have ,this act is against China claim in East or South China Sea belong in ancient time. China also prepare aggravate trouble to this area ,for sure will counter back them off completely.

I follow what everyone is saying and hear differing views that are merely because of interpretations of the treaty. The truth is and hopefully everyone will eventually see it is that Japan is and will always be a hostile people, if they believe they are backed by the US then they will push an escalation. In the history between Japan and China there is still remaining bitterness for the Japanese occupations and massacres of Chinese citizens. Because of this, as an American living and teaching in China things are a little touchy here as the US is oft considered siding with Japan. I would feel much better if the US would publicly say that there will be no conflict over these islands and if Japan does something to escalate it they will be the first to suffer the US military wrath. This is good cause why Japan should not have ever been allowed to start building a navy or military, keep them dependant on the US and under control, we know what they can do if unchecked.